Democrats not backing down on Iraq Bill

[sabra]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON - House Democratic leaders are indicating they are not ready to back down in their confrontation with President Bush on Iraq, even as pressure mounts to approve new funding for U.S. troops.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., and other party leaders are considering a bill that would fund the war as Bush wants, but only guarantee the money through July. After that, Congress could block additional money from being sent if the Iraqi government does not meet certain political and security goals.

The proposal, not yet endorsed or briefed to caucus members, would be a direct challenge to the president, who has demanded Congress fund the war with no strings attached. This week, Bush vetoed a $124.2 billion bill that would have provided money for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan while requiring troops to begin coming home by Oct. 1.

White House officials and Republicans have chastised Democrats for holding up the war spending bill, saying U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan need the money now. Because Democrats do not hold a two-thirds majority to override Bush's veto, Republicans say Democrats ultimately will have to drop their demands or risk hurting the troops.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

[HereSince1628]

1. Great. I think this is a workable strategy

It makes unlimited funding very uncertain which should motivate Iraqis to get their government in order. It gives time for the R's to shift to a more "bring them home" stance needed for their campaigns, and its an approach that insures that the minimum money is promised and delivered. All things that will continue to gain in the Dems favor over the next few months.

[Roland99]

2. And with the Iraqi gov't going on a 2-month vacation.....

should be interesting.

[GeorgeGist]

3. Note to Dem leaders ...

ignore the pressure from the pundits, and listen to the people.

[tahoelewis]

11. backing down?

I agree; a great majority of the America people want us out now. Edwards is correct: re-submit the same bill again. The bill contains many items that are important to the military, important to Bush, important to America. If the chimp-in-chief continues to veto it, it will come back to bite him on the ass--not the Democrats. Reid needs to grow a spine and pressure the Republican senators into understanding that their political future lies in defying Bush, not enabling him.

BTW, I thought Pelosi's comeback (that the Congress is substituting their judgment for the president's, not the military's) was excellent.

[Rydz777]

4. "only guarantee the money through July"

is the good part. I am very skeptical about then tying further action to meeting "goals." Goals and "benchmarks" are a swamp, smoke and mirrors, in short a fraud. Bush will be "the Decider" as to whether such goals or benchmarks are met. He will drag this thing out, with more of our troops killed or maimed, until he leaves office, and then dump the mess into the lap of the new Democratic President. The Democratic Congress will save both lives and future grief by stopping this disaster NOW.

[noamnety]

5. If they can cut the money off in July

why can't they cut it off now?

Is it because we need failed benchmarks to make a pullout successful? 'Cause in that case ... seems like it would be pretty successful if we did it now.

How is it beneficial to wait til July?

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. It is beneficial to wait until July because that cuts out the only remaining plank

The GOP canard that we must "wait for the strategy to work."

By July, that lie will be exposed as such, and they will have zero arguments remaining.

Does this mean that scores, and perhaps hundreds of US troops will die between now and then? Yes, of course. Bush's veto can be thanked for that.

[noamnety]

10. So it's for political reasons?

I hope that will console the families of the US troops and Iraqis that die between now and then.

THAT ISN'T A VALID REASON TO FUND GENOCIDE, DAMMIT.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. The capacity to accomplish your goal isn't a good reason?

Better to set a goal you can't accomplish, I suppose.

[noamnety]

17. There is no "goal" to accomplish in Iraq

It's just a senseless slaughter.

Are there any other genocides in history you think politicians should have funded, because it was good for their party or for their long term goals?

I view this as American exceptionalism. "We'll just fund Auschwitz until October, and look, we have some benchmarks here to measure success."

History doesn't look kindly on such things, for good reason.

Bush can't continue the war unless the democrats are complicit in funding it. The bill Bush vetoed was already a disgusting and unnecessary "compromise" by the democrats - the compromise being paid in human lives. (Not theirs.)

[MGKrebs]

6. The problem here is that Bush is not CAPABLE of compromising.

To him, it's all or nothing, yes or no. He does not possess the type of creative thinking that would allow a negotiated path through this. So where does that leave us?

Even if Dems suggest a compromise, he won't take it. He won't recognize it or understand it.
If we stick to our guns and make him keep vetoing similar bills, what happens? He just might leave the troops there with less and less support/equipment/tires/bullets. Now he may try to blame the Dems and the Dems might try to blame him, but in the meantime, the soldiers are in big trouble.

Can/will Bush be made to back down?

[liberal N proud]

7. So, will they block the money in July?

Unless they set such loose goals that Iraq has alread met them, there is no way the Irqis will meet any gols

[soothsayer]

9. Beat ya' to the post! (other comments in this AHEM earlier thread) hee hee

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x820924

[Zorra]

12. Bu*h vetoed the Bill; therefore, he is solely responsible for the troops

not getting the money right now.

[MGD]

13. Quit fucking around with this monkey and end this god-damned catastrophe before it gets worse.

Call Bush's bluff, send him the bill back. He is weak and ineffectual and lacks the support of his own party and the vast majority of Americans. He is powerless and vulnerable. Administer the coup-de-grac to this deserving little dictator.

[Triana]

14. GOOD - ONLY fund it in 2-month increments...

...and with conditions that certain requirements are met. They have GOT to get control of bu$hit's hands in the national purse all the time for funding his endless freakin wars.

WE CANNOT continue this debacle.

[noamnety]

18. What is the purpose of funding it for another two months? (nt)

[w4rma]

16. I strongly support this bill. (July 2007, right?) -- Include full Katrina aid, please, also.-- (nt)